Evangelical Pastor ignites firestorm

[LDS Guy 1986]

Sounds rather....Rameumptom-ish.

Well if that's how you feel, too bad you totally miss the humorous sarcasm. I am sorry that you cannot remove the stick from your hind quarters and get a little chuckle out of some humor and sarcasm!

LDS Guy has left the building.

[Hughes]

Satan (aka the Devil) doesn't care what lie you believe.

"Likewise for the related Greek word aion, which is used throughout Revelation for eternity in heaven (e.g., 1:18, 4:9-10, 5:13-14, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 22:5), and also for eternal punishment (14:11, 20:10). Some attempt to argue that Revelation 20:10 only applies to the devil, but they must explain Revelation 20:15: "and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." The "book of life" clearly has reference to human beings (cf. Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:11-14, 21:27). It is impossible to deny that fact."

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/biblical-evidence-for-eternal-hell.html

[Anakin7]

Satan (aka the Devil) doesn't care what lie you believe.

"Likewise for the related Greek word aion, which is used throughout Revelation for eternity in heaven (e.g., 1:18, 4:9-10, 5:13-14, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 22:5), and also for eternal punishment (14:11, 20:10). Some attempt to argue that Revelation 20:10 only applies to the devil, but they must explain Revelation 20:15: "and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." The "book of life" clearly has reference to human beings (cf. Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:11-14, 21:27). It is impossible to deny that fact."

http://socrates58.bl...ernal-hell.html

I am no scholar/theologian/biblisist but I believe you left out a word in the Revelation 20:15 reference. And also missed a concept there as well.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Robert F. Smith]

Satan (aka the Devil) doesn't care what lie you believe.

"Likewise for the related Greek word aion, which is used throughout Revelation for eternity in heaven (e.g., 1:18, 4:9-10, 5:13-14, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 22:5), and also for eternal punishment (14:11, 20:10). Some attempt to argue that Revelation 20:10 only applies to the devil, but they must explain Revelation 20:15: "and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." The "book of life" clearly has reference to human beings (cf. Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:11-14, 21:27). It is impossible to deny that fact."

http://socrates58.bl...ernal-hell.html

Lucky for us, you are not the one who decides whose name gets into the Book of Life.

I absolutely agree, Alan. It's the principle of the leaven. Or perhaps it's better compared to the healing waters that flow from the temple in Ezekial.

Whatever Pastor Bell gets wrong, imo, he is much closer to the truth than those who oppose him. Consider these words from the comment section under the article linked above:

Yes, Dustyluv, the loving parent of all men is sending a bus for the millions who never had an opportunity to learn of His Son. That's what it's all about. Taking their [expletive deleted] out.

Yeh, and what is wonderful is that all (or most) will have a chance over on the other side of the veil to make a decision whether to accept Christ's sacrifice and his ordinances of salvation -- and to be written in the Book of Life. Only Satan will rejoice if large numbers end up sharing his fate and frustrating God's Plan of Happiness.

[urroner]

I think most Evangelicals have enough sense to say some day, "If we can't beat them, let's join them!"

[Hughes]

I am no scholar/theologian/biblisist but I believe you left out a word in the Revelation 20:15 reference. And also missed a concept there as well.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

A whole post and no information. What word was left out of the quote I copied? and what concept?

Lucky for us, you are not the one who decides whose name gets into the Book of Life.

Yeh, and what is wonderful is that all (or most) will have a chance over on the other side of the veil to make a decision whether to accept Christ's sacrifice and his ordinances of salvation -- and to be written in the Book of Life. Only Satan will rejoice if large numbers end up sharing his fate and frustrating God's Plan of Happiness.

Luckily I didn't claim to be the decider. I just quoted it. And no where does it say we'll be able to choose anything after we die.

[Anakin7]

A whole post and no information. What word was left out of the quote I copied? and what concept?

Luckily I didn't claim to be the decider. I just quoted it. And no where does it say we'll be able to choose anything after we die.

Pray Tell Hughes you cannot find/see it ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[urroner]

And no where does it say we'll be able to choose anything after we die.

Alas, nowhere does it say that we won't be able to choose anything after we die. This is known as the logical fallacy "Argument From Silence" or, for the eggheads around here, "Argumentum ex Silentio."

[LeSellers]

no where does it say we'll be able to choose anything after we die.

But that's not true of the whole Bible, is it?

5 [Those who speak evil of you] shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might ... live according to God in the spirit.

If the wicked will be able to live according to God, it sounds as if they must be able to make choices (different choices) after they are dead. Peter says so, at least, and I choose to believe him over those who have constructed their own Plan of Salvation Damnation that consigns men, even good men who were unfortunate enough to have failed to hear the name of Christ and have faith in Him, consigns, as I say, these men to an eternity of unspeakable agony, unrelieved by the least respite.

God, Who said He had no joy in the wicked's dying, could not send these innocent sinners to the hell whose torments you seem to relish (as long as they will apply to others, and not to you): it would be outside His character.

Lehi

[Mudcat]

Hi MnG,

I have been meaning to comment on the article you submitted to the forum about Rob Bell and have put it off for some reason or another.

I haven't read his books and am not certain of his direction. From his video, the impetus seems to be that it would be a pity if only a few made it and that many were consigned to eternal punishment, even though many of "the many" never heard of Christ or his Gospel.

Most Evangelicals would tag him as someone who is promoting "emergent" type doctrine which, by virtue, ostracizes him from any orthodox position. I think the title of the OP replacing "Emergent" for "EV" would be more correct.

After reading the article and watching the video. I thought given the information, he seemed to headed towards a Universalistic standpoint. I have an insurmountable issue with the notion of Universalism. So.... I did a bit of research into Bell and it doesn't appear he is promoting Universal doctrine.

I'll source this article. The quote referenced is in the closing of it.

"If we have the freedom to choose these things now, that Jesus came to offer us and show us, then I assume that when you die, you can continue to choose these realities because love cannot co-opt the human heart's ability to decide," Bell said. "But after you die, we are firmly in the realm of speculation."

Bold mine and underline mine.

I am glad that Bell admits he is being assumptive and speculative in his teachings. The problem I have, is that he is promoting "assumption" and "speculation" in a very serious way.

I don't really even get what he was saying with his usage of "co-opt" when he said, "love cannot co-opt the human heart's ability to decide"... That is just a martini of jibber-jabber.. shaken, not stirred with a twist of personification.

Bell seems to think he is "rediscovering" Christianity and needs to let everyone know what he has rediscovered based on his speculations and assumptions. The thing that hacks me off a bit, is that his marketing is based upon deriding common EV beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that marketing strategy, if all your after is people who are looking for "New and Improved EV doctrine" rather than the same old EV doctrine they have been using wash after wash.

I don't see Bell winning many converts from any sector of Christianity other than disparaged EVs that can't come to reconciliation with his issues any better than he has with his 'Hope on a Rope' doctrine.

Mudcat

[Tango]

Perhaps someone should point out on there that it is a very Mormon concept? 0.o

Are you saying Ghandi was Mormon?

[mercyngrace]

Hi MnG,

I have been meaning to comment on the article you submitted to the forum about Rob Bell and have put it off for some reason or another.

I haven't read his books and am not certain of his direction. From his video, the impetus seems to be that it would be a pity if only a few made it and that many were consigned to eternal punishment, even though many of "the many" never heard of Christ or his Gospel.

Most Evangelicals would tag him as someone who is promoting "emergent" type doctrine which, by virtue, ostracizes him from any orthodox position. I think the title of the OP replacing "Emergent" for "EV" would be more correct.

I watched an interview with him in which he rejected the emergent description. He has a problem with labels as they separate us while his goal is to unify us under the banner of Christ.

After reading the article and watching the video. I thought given the information, he seemed to headed towards a Universalistic standpoint. I have an insurmountable issue with the notion of Universalism. So.... I did a bit of research into Bell and it doesn't appear he is promoting Universal doctrine.

I'll source this article. The quote referenced is in the closing of it.

Bold mine and underline mine.

I am glad that Bell admits he is being assumptive and speculative in his teachings. The problem I have, is that he is promoting "assumption" and "speculation" in a very serious way.

How is that different than early church writers who wrote their personal interpretations of the faith?

I don't really even get what he was saying with his usage of "co-opt" when he said, "love cannot co-opt the human heart's ability to decide"... That is just a martini of jibber-jabber.. shaken, not stirred with a twist of personification.

The notion that free will continues after death is very consistent with Mormonism - another reason I find Bell interesting.

Bell seems to think he is "rediscovering" Christianity and needs to let everyone know what he has rediscovered based on his speculations and assumptions. The thing that hacks me off a bit, is that his marketing is based upon deriding common EV beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that marketing strategy, if all your after is people who are looking for "New and Improved EV doctrine" rather than the same old EV doctrine they have been using wash after wash.

I don't see Bell winning many converts from any sector of Christianity other than disparaged EVs that can't come to reconciliation with his issues any better than he has with his 'Hope on a Rope' doctrine.

Mudcat

I think your opinion is probably going to be the prevailing one. I've seen numerous videos denouncing Bell for heresy. His presumed heresies align nicely with Mormonism, though, which again, fascinates me. I say "presumed" because I have only begun reading, watching, and listening to him - I'm not sure yet whether he's presenting anything more than a marketing gimmick at this point.

[zerinus]

I'm not sure yet whether he's presenting anything more than a marketing gimmick at this point.

I believe it is a marketing gimmick. The best way to judge his character is to watch his videos. They are easily found on the Internet, such as in here.

[Hughes]

Pray Tell Hughes you cannot find/see it ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

I could find what I might suppose you might mean... and I could possibly refute your supposed contention, yet what fun is that? If we are to have a conversation, you need to step up and speak up. Have trouble with that?

Alas, nowhere does it say that we won't be able to choose anything after we die. This is known as the logical fallacy "Argument From Silence" or, for the eggheads around here, "Argumentum ex Silentio."

Two places in the bible, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16), and Hebews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

Hardly an argument from silence, wouldn't you agree?

But that's not true of the whole Bible, is it?

If the wicked will be able to live according to God, it sounds as if they must be able to make choices (different choices) after they are dead. Peter says so, at least, and I choose to believe him over those who have constructed their own Plan of Salvation Damnation that consigns men, even good men who were unfortunate enough to have failed to hear the name of Christ and have faith in Him, consigns, as I say, these men to an eternity of unspeakable agony, unrelieved by the least respite.

God, Who said He had no joy in the wicked's dying, could not send these innocent sinners to the hell whose torments you seem to relish (as long as they will apply to others, and not to you): it would be outside His character.

Lehi

Notice in the passage it doesn't say they were able to repent, only that they will be judged. Peter doesn't say they are able to change their choices.

You make an assumption, that those who failed to hear the name of Christ will be condemned. This isn't accurate biblical doctrine. God judges the heart of all men, and knows who are his, no matter how much light or truth they've been given.

[Vance]

Two places in the bible, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16), and Hebews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

Hardly an argument from silence, wouldn't you agree?

Notice in the passage it doesn't say they were able to repent, only that they will be judged. Peter doesn't say they are able to change their choices.

Now, THAT is an "argument from silence"!!

[Anakin7]

I could find what I might suppose you might mean... and I could possibly refute your supposed contention, yet what fun is that? If we are to have a conversation, you need to step up and speak up. Have trouble with that?

Two places in the bible, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16), and Hebews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

Hardly an argument from silence, wouldn't you agree?

Notice in the passage it doesn't say they were able to repent, only that they will be judged. Peter doesn't say they are able to change their choices.

You make an assumption, that those who failed to hear the name of Christ will be condemned. This isn't accurate biblical doctrine. God judges the heart of all men, and knows who are his, no matter how much light or truth they've been given.

"IF"

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[LeSellers]

Two places in the bible [sic], the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16),

This one is a bit of a problem for our position, but only if you assume that the resurrection of Jesus Christ changed nothing in regards to what happens to men after we die.

While the rich man in the Lazarus parable (i.e., a story used to teach a principle, the story not being an account of a true event) was told there was a gulf fixed between them (the good and the wicked) that none could pass across, this is not necessarily still true, given that Jesus' was speaking before the resurrection, while Peter wrote after this singularly significant event. We should ask, did anything change? I suspect the answer should be "yes".

and Hebews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

I'm sure you noticed it did not say "and immediately after this...".

Furthermore, you do recognize that there are two judgments. We know that there are two judgments for everyone. The first determines whether we go to Paradise or Prison in the (post-mortal) Spirit World and the second is when we find out where we go for eternity. Your side's version is confusing and non-scriptural.

Hardly an argument from silence, wouldn't you agree?

No, it is just a twisted misunderstanding of what the scriptures say.

Notice in the passage [1 Peter 4:5~6] it doesn't say they were able to repent, only that they will be judged. Peter doesn't say they are able to change their choices.

You must be reading a very different passage from the one I have in my AV Bible. Here it is (for those who don't have Bible handy).

5 [Those who speak evil of the Saints] shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might ... live according to God in the spirit.

If they could not repent, one is left to ponder how these evil people could "live according to God".

You make an assumption, that those who failed to hear the name of Christ will be condemned. This isn't accurate biblical doctrine. God judges the heart of all men, and knows who are his, no matter how much light or truth they've been given.

Then how can you possibly claim that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ in this life will not be saved?

Your version sounds suspiciously like this passage:

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

But I don't recall reading that in any "Evangelical" version of the Gospel. Perhaps you could supply the Bible passage(s) that support your assertion.

Lehi

[Hughes]

Satan (aka the Devil) doesn't care what lie you believe.

"Likewise for the related Greek word aion, which is used throughout Revelation for eternity in heaven (e.g., 1:18, 4:9-10, 5:13-14, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 22:5), and also for eternal punishment (14:11, 20:10). Some attempt to argue that Revelation 20:10 only applies to the devil, but they must explain Revelation 20:15: "and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." The "book of life" clearly has reference to human beings (cf. Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:11-14, 21:27). It is impossible to deny that fact."

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/biblical-evidence-for-eternal-hell.html

I am no scholar/theologian/biblisist but I believe you left out a word in the Revelation 20:15 reference. And also missed a concept there as well.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

"IF"

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Hmmm... A word was left out of 20:15, you said it was the word "if". Hmmm...

Rev. 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Nope. Not missing. oh well.

[Hughes]

This one is a bit of a problem for our position, but only if you assume that the resurrection of Jesus Christ changed nothing in regards to what happens to men after we die.

While the rich man in the Lazarus parable (i.e., a story used to teach a principle, the story not being an account of a true event) was told there was a gulf fixed between them (the good and the wicked) that none could pass across, this is not necessarily still true, given that Jesus' was speaking before the resurrection, while Peter wrote after this singularly significant event. We should ask, did anything change? I suspect the answer should be "yes".

A parable is used to teach principles. The principles in this parable are that of the finality of our choices here as it relates to the next life. Notice, the last part of the parable, where the rich man was pleading, send someone from the dead, because then my brothers would repent and avoid this place. The implication is clear. There's no repentance or choices after death.

Your contention that this all changed after the resurrection is false. Unless of course you wish to claim that all of Christ's teachings should be changed based on the resurrection event. He even stated that he was the resurrection and the life. If you honestly think the bible teaches that the Gulf between the good and wicked is removed after the resurrection, you'll have to back that up with references.

I'm sure you noticed it did not say "and immediately after this...".

Furthermore, you do recognize that there are two judgments. We know that there are two judgments for everyone. The first determines whether we go to Paradise or Prison in the (post-mortal) Spirit World and the second is when we find out where we go for eternity. Your side's version is confusing and non-scriptural.

No, it is just a twisted misunderstanding of what the scriptures say.

I'm simply reading it plainly. And "after this" also means "immediately" as seen in the parable above.

You must be reading a very different passage from the one I have in my AV Bible. Here it is (for those who don't have Bible handy).

If they could not repent, one is left to ponder how these evil people could "live according to God".

The peter passage doesn't say those were evil people.

Then how can you possibly claim that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ in this life will not be saved?

Your version sounds suspiciously like this passage:

But I don't recall reading that in any "Evangelical" version of the Gospel. Perhaps you could supply the Bible passage(s) that support your assertion.

Lehi

People who don't know exactly who christ was, are judged on what they do know, not what they don't know.

As Paul states, no one is without excuse, and to whom is given much, much is also required.

[zerinus]

The peter passage doesn't say those were evil people.

I thought according to Evangelical doctrine all mankind are sinners. You are being inconsistent.

People who don't know exactly who christ was, are judged on what they do know, not what they don't know.

As Paul states, no one is without excuse, and to whom is given much, much is also required.

So are you suggesting that they are saved, or are you saying that they are damned?

[LeSellers]

A parable is used to teach principles.

If you are going to quote me, please use my exact words. What I said was a parable is "a story used to teach a principle, the story not being an account of a true event".

The principles in this parable are that of the finality of our choices here as it relates to the next life. Notice, the last part of the parable, where the rich man was pleading, send someone from the dead, because then my brothers would repent and avoid this place. The implication is clear. There's no repentance or choices after death.

Recall the story was to make that point that people ought to be following the Law of Moses, which the rich man had not done, that they should follow the prophets and believe their words. Abraham (the speaker in the parable) has Lazarus in his "bosom", showing that this is not heaven, but only the Spirit World, because "heaven" is with Father, not one of His servants, not even one so high as Abraham.

You claim I am wrong, that there is no possibility of repentance after this life, but Peter tells us that disobedient people heard the Gospel in spirit prison, precisely so they could repent.

You even claim that those who heard the Gospel in prison were not "evil", as I had asserted; that the "peter [sic] passage doesn't say those were evil people", but that's because you only tread the piece I quoted. Just a few verses earlier, Peter does say they were "disobedient": "Christ ... went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient ...". Disobedient spirits in prison don't seem like candidates for the label "righteous", at least in my mind.

I'm simply reading it plainly. And "after this" also means "immediately" as seen in the parable above.

"And after this" can mean "immediately following this", but that's not the only possible meaning. I have seen a lot of Evangelicals make far too much of this verse. A host of things could come "after this".

The meaning Apollos had in mind in this verse hasn't anything to do with when we will be judged, but the fact that Christ suffered but once for all sin.

Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Notice the repeated use of "once". There's a reason writers use this kind of device.

People who don't know exactly who christ was, are judged on what they do know, not what they don't know.

As Paul states, no one is without excuse, and to whom is given much, much is also required.

That's about the first time I have ever heard an Evangelical admit that there is a chance for those who have not explicitly "accepted Jesus as Savior" in this life.

Here's one example:

"In John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

"If you do not believe this there is 100% chance when you die you will go to hell. Please understand I do not hate you or want you to go there! I just hope to wake you up with this truth preached by Tim Conway from Hell is Necessary sermon. Hell is real and there is no escape."

So, your departure from this makes you sound very LDS, rather than Evangelical.

Lehi

[zerinus]

So, your departure from this makes you sound very LDS, rather than Evangelical.

Perhaps he has been listening to too much of Rob Bell!

[noel00]

Interesting article on Bell

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathleen-falsani/rob-bell-heretic-schmeret_b_835606.html

[Hughes]

I thought according to Evangelical doctrine all mankind are sinners. You are being inconsistent.

So are you suggesting that they are saved, or are you saying that they are damned?

The passage in question isn't clear that it's referring to mankind.

As I said, "People who don't know exactly who christ was, are judged on what they do know, not what they don't know.

As Paul states, no one is without excuse, and to whom is given much, much is also required."

Only God knows who is saved or not.

[Anakin7]

Hmmm... A word was left out of 20:15, you said it was the word "if". Hmmm...

Rev. 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Nope. Not missing. oh well.

NIV - Rev 20:15 "IF" anyone's name was not written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Yes "IF" [ Meaning on condition of ] is in some Bibles but is missing in some Bibles. Hughes You had better call the NIV Translating committee to recall all the NIV Bibles to get that changed if it's not supposed to be there .

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT